I appreciate your attempting to respond to my request of a few weeks ago
when you wrote:>Oard discussed the multiple Ice Age theories and shows that all the>evidence can easily be explained by one ice age. This is a detailed>technical monograph.

and I replied:

>Since some of us don't have the technical monograph, why don't you outline
some >of the data?

But unfortunately this post does not do what is needed. There is the issue
of the geologic evidence which is not at all discussed in your post and then
there is the logical fallacy that our supposed inability to explain glacial
ages leads to the conclusion that the global flood is the correct solution.
Let me for the moment assume that Oard is correct, that we don't have a good
understanding of the mechanism of glacial formation. The logical flow is as
follows.

1. Uniformitarianists can't explain the glacial ages.

2. If they can't explain one glacial age, then they can't explain multiple
glacial ages.

3. Therefore the post flood glacial age is true.

Logically, this is what is known as a non-sequitur. The conclusion simply
doesn't follow from the premise. In order for Oard's thesis to be proven, he
must

1. show that there is no geologic evidence of multiple ice ages
2. Prove a negative (i.e. uniformitarianists will NEVER find a mechanism)
3. prove that the flood is the only explanation for the geologic data worldwide.

He did not touch on the geologic evidence for multiple glaciations and it is
impossible to prove a negative and the geologic data is not consistent with
a global flood.

Let's look at the geologic evidence for multiple glaciations. A glacier
leaves a special type of deposit called a till. It is an unsorted pile of
rocks and clay. If you find two or more tills on top of each other at a
given location and inbetween them is evidence of the passage of time, you
know you have to have multiple glaciations.

"Deposits of the Holstein Interglacial overlie those of the
Elster Glaciation and are, in turn, overlain by, caught up and
deformed in, glacial drift of the Saale Glaciation. The Holstein
marine transgression penetrated from the north or north-west, and
the contemporary coastline ran more or less west to east in the
northern Netherlands, defined a marked indentation along the
Elbe, while a seaway existed between Hamburg and Lubeck. In the
Baltic marine deposits are known from Funen and Mecklenburg.
Palaeoecological inference from molluscan faunas demonstrated a
rise in temperature, initially to boreal conditions, then
subsequently to conditions comparable to the present-day North
Sea."~D. Q. Bowen, Quaternary Geology, (New York: Pergamon Press,
1978), p. 22

Remember, Oard want the glaciers to be post flood. This means that the
ocean is back in its present boundaries after the flood. How did the ocean
cover the land again? Were their multiple floods?

Warm weather plants also help the situation and found between two tills.
Consider this:

"In the 1860's Archibald Geikie argued that a layer of plant
fragments found between two layers of Scottish till represented a
period of warm climate between two advances of the ice sheet; the
argument was settled conclusively in the 1870's when the remains
of a forest were found sandwiched between two sheets of till in
the American Midwest."~Windsor Chorlton, Ice Ages, (Chicago:
Time-Life Books, 1983), p. 90-95

Now, considering that this forest is, by your and Oard's position, POST
FLOOD, you can't say that this was a forest deposited catastrophically by
the Flood. The forest HAD to have grown in the post flood world BETWEEN the
two glacial tills. It takes LOTS of time for a forest to grow.

I would also like to comment on what Michael wrote:

>But: What about the facts? Aren't they scientifically solid? Yes, if >facts are observed facts, and "all" the observations are adequately >described. This last point may not be appreciated. Unfortunately, it>is common practice, in science, not to publish negative or inconclusive >studies. The facts on record may just be a biased sample. We must be >careful, even when using "observational" data.

This is logically an ad hominem. It is an attack on the integrity of the
scientists. This type of argument should have no place in these
discussions. First, it is logically fallacious. Secondly, you know of bad
data precisely because it IS published. And thirdly, Christians should not
engage in casting these types of aspersions so broadly.

Of the view that bad data is not published, I find it most amusing in YEC
literature about radioactive dating that they publish long lists of bad data
taken from the scientific literature,and then state that bad dates are never
published.